I also have to say, like Daytona, i fully agree with lots of Blake's post especially regarding education. Which is where gun safety and the likes should be addressed with kids from a young age. In mu school in the UK we had been taught about (and i do mean taught, not just told 'it's bad, don't do it') sex, contraception, sti's, drugs, smoking, and a lot of other similar things before i was 12.

Yet we have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe!

People are too thick to be trusted with guns, some think they are more "free" by owning a gun.... Ban them.

I also have to say, like Daytona, i fully agree with lots of Blake's post especially regarding education. Which is where gun safety and the likes should be addressed with kids from a young age. In mu school in the UK we had been taught about (and i do mean taught, not just told 'it's bad, don't do it') sex, contraception, sti's, drugs, smoking, and a lot of other similar things before i was 12.

Yet we have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe!

People are too thick to be trusted with guns, some think they are more "free" by owning a gun.... Ban them.

I was giving my 1 school as an example. Even in my own little city i have friends who didn't seem to have as good an education in PSE as me (i don't actually know if schools here still have personal social education).

For your comment regarding people being thick. It has been mentioned before - having the right to own a gun and actually owning one are two different things. But maybe it is those people who want to own a gun for any reason other than hunting (i can't say sport, cause it isn't) or use on a range at a club or the likes ate the people who should be given a psych evaluation before being allowed one.

_________________There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

I also have to say, like Daytona, i fully agree with lots of Blake's post especially regarding education. Which is where gun safety and the likes should be addressed with kids from a young age. In mu school in the UK we had been taught about (and i do mean taught, not just told 'it's bad, don't do it') sex, contraception, sti's, drugs, smoking, and a lot of other similar things before i was 12.

Yet we have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe!

Some People are too thick to be trusted with guns, some think they are more "free" by owning a gun.... Ban them.

fixed that there

some people are too thick for driving, but having cars is seen as acceptable. Just like cars guns are inanimate objects. On their own they can't kill. The just sit there hunks of metal. Inanimate. It takes that human element to make them dangerous. Without the human aspect they simply do nothing. Put a gun on a table it's nothing more than a paper weight until someone picks it up. If it isn't touched it can't kill.

People who leave guns where they can be accessed by kids are like the people who put pesticides in a drinks bottle and leave it on the kitchen bench.

Just out of interest does anyone know the laws regarding the storage of poisons in the states and the storage of firearms for comparison?

Well I don't think people should have the right to own a gun. Call me a socialist {lol) but when 'rights' start to affect the safety of others then you have to question if it is even a necessary right now. Truth be told it isn't. Everyone should have the right to have water and food and feel safe. Guns unfortunately don't keep people safe.

In the USA there are 87 guns for every 100 purple, the next highest country is Yemen with about 55 guns per 100 people....

The rest of the free world can manage without guns why can't USA?

Last time I was at a US store my cousin noticed some people cutting the queue, they seem to look like bikers, he said we can't confront them because he's afraid they'll pull out a gun.... Freedom?

If someone is likely to pull out a gun in a queue for being confronted. Do you think gun laws would hinder them?

As for being a right. the way I look at them is, for most people they are a hobby. Like you or me might want to have guitars or go racing. Folk I know use them exactly as that. They take the guns down to the club and shoot paper targets. Nothing more sinister than going paintballing. Others use them for hunting. They go out shoot some rabbits and make some stew, or they use them for pest control. Controlling the fox population to protect their lively hood. Again nothing nasty. I was going to get one to take care of rooks that were giving a friends chickens, ducks and geese hassle.

Some people want them to protect their home. Now that's where America I believe differs from a lot of the western world in that in America you are allowed to use force to protect yourself and family. If that's allowed where is the problem with allowing people the tools to do that? No point letting you protect your family and your house but taking away the tools that allow that.

The number of guns doesn't matter. As I said before a gun is an inanimate object. It's only when you put a gun into irresponsible hands it becomes a problem. Just like many other dangerous things in our lives.

As for being a right. the way I look at them is, for most people they are a hobby. Like you or me might want to have guitars or go racing. Folk I know use them exactly as that. They take the guns down to the club and shoot paper targets. Nothing more sinister than going paintballing. Others use them for hunting. They go out shoot some rabbits and make some stew, or they use them for pest control. Controlling the fox population to protect their lively hood. Again nothing nasty. I was going to get one to take care of rooks that were giving a friends chickens, ducks and geese hassle.

I think this is where our country differs from America though. I know a lot of people who enjoy shooting, I live out in the Styx and every farmer and his mum is packing heat round here. Hell, I own a couple of air rifles that I use for target shooting and bagging the occasional squirrel stealing from our garden. The thing is, and I think this is true for the vast majority of people I know, I would never consider owning a gun for "protection" whereas, in America, I think (and I'm only speculating here) this is the main reason a lot of people own them. It also explains the type of guns people own. The ones I use are not designed to kill people as efficiently as possible, they are, as you pointed out, hobby pieces designed for targets and animals. Contrast this to America where I can go down Walmart and pick up an assault rifle or handgun specifically designed to inflict the most damage possible to other humans. That's where the difference lies and those are the sorts of guns that need to be banned, ones that exist solely to kill people.

Johnston wrote:

The number of guns doesn't matter. As I said before a gun is an inanimate object. It's only when you put a gun into irresponsible hands it becomes a problem. Just like many other dangerous things in our lives.

I don't think the comparison between, say, a gun and a car (which is also a dangerous thing if placed in irresponsible hands) is a logical stuff. Guns are specifically designed to kill people whereas cars (or whatever) are not.

_________________"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea."

I don't think the comparison between, say, a gun and a car (which is also a dangerous thing if placed in irresponsible hands) is a logical stuff. Guns are specifically designed to kill people whereas cars (or whatever) are not.

Thats why I have also mentioned poisons. Poisons are designed to kill. But like guns are not dangerous to people until they are used irresponsibly.

Guns may be designed to kill people. But it's not the gun that decides to shot someone it's the person behind it. Cars are the same okay they are not designed to kill but the person in control has to make a decision before it kills. a car in the wrong hands is just as much a weapon as a gun. It can't just suddenly go I'm going to kill him and neither can a gun no matter what it is designed to do. It takes human intervention to make it kill. It takes the human element to turn it into a lethal weapon. The last part of the flat pack kit as it where.

I don't think the comparison between, say, a gun and a car (which is also a dangerous thing if placed in irresponsible hands) is a logical stuff. Guns are specifically designed to kill people whereas cars (or whatever) are not.

Thats why I have also mentioned poisons. Poisons are designed to kill. But like guns are not dangerous to people until they are used irresponsibly.

Guns may be designed to kill people. But it's not the gun that decides to shot someone it's the person behind it. Cars are the same okay they are not designed to kill but the person in control has to make a decision before it kills. a car in the wrong hands is just as much a weapon as a gun. It can't just suddenly go I'm going to kill him and neither can a gun no matter what it is designed to do. It takes human intervention to make it kill. It takes the human element to turn it into a lethal weapon. The last part of the flat pack kit as it where.

I'm more arguing on an ethical level than a practical one, I don't think it's "morally right" (or some bullshit like that) that people should have easy access to items designed for killing other people.

_________________"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea."

Just read something I found totally amazing. Dunno if it's a 100% true but no reason to doubt it.

Switzerland has the 4th highest gun owner ship in the world.

It was one of the highest ownership of Automatic rifles. Mainly because after conscription they get to keep their rifles and are supplied with an amount of Ammo. The necessary ammo can also be bought.

stats show almost twice as many people being stabbed as shot in Switzerland.

Apparently

Quote:

The army sells a variety of machine guns, submachine guns, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft guns, howitzers and cannons. Purchasers of these weapons require an easily obtained cantonal license, and the weapons are registered, In a nation of six million people, there are at least two million guns, including 600,00 fully automatic assault rifles, half a million pistols, and numerous machine guns. Virtually every home has a gun.

So the question is, why can Switzerland have such a high gun ownership rate and a relatively low gun crime rate and the USA not?

I'm fairly sure I read that ammo is kept at gun clubs and can only be used there. I also think there is a big difference between getting to keep a gun after you have served in the military and having a right to own a gun because you are alive. One is as a result of serving your country and keeping it safe the other reminds me of the Wild West. It's just a completely different mindset.

Edit: just found this.

Quote:

Prior to 2007 members of the Swiss Militia were supplied with 50 rounds of ammunition for their military weapon in a sealed ammo box that was regularly audited by the government. This was so that, in the case of an emergency, the militia could respond quickly. However, since 2007 this practice has been discontinued. Only 2,000 specialist militia members (who protect airports and other sites of particular sensitivity) are permitted to keep their military-issued ammunition at home. The rest of the militia get their ammunition from their military armory in the event of an emergency

So the question is, why can Switzerland have such a high gun ownership rate and a relatively low gun crime rate and the USA not?

I'm fairly sure I read that ammo is kept at gun clubs and can only be used there. I also think there is a big difference between getting to keep a gun after you have served in the military and having a right to own a gun because you are alive. One is as a result of serving your country and keeping it safe the other reminds me of the Wild West. It's just a completely different mindset.

I believe that, as part of their conscriptional duty, Swiss citizens are required to keep a certain amount of ammo in their homes. I think you have hit the nail on the head when talking about keeping a gun after serving in the military. I think it is probably better to let people who know the effects of what guns can do keep guns than any old redneck yahoo.

_________________"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea."

So the question is, why can Switzerland have such a high gun ownership rate and a relatively low gun crime rate and the USA not?

I'm fairly sure I read that ammo is kept at gun clubs and can only be used there. I also think there is a big difference between getting to keep a gun after you have served in the military and having a right to own a gun because you are alive. One is as a result of serving your country and keeping it safe the other reminds me of the Wild West. It's just a completely different mindset.

I believe that, as part of their conscriptional duty, Swiss citizens are required to keep a certain amount of ammo in their homes. I think you have hit the nail on the head when talking about keeping a gun after serving in the military. I think it is probably better to let people who know the effects of what guns can do keep guns than any old redneck yahoo.

See my ninja edit P4E

I just think that being introduced to guns in a controlled way with the idea of serving the greater good rather than just being allowed to have one to do what you want with means guns are seen completely differently by the two respective societies.

So the question is, why can Switzerland have such a high gun ownership rate and a relatively low gun crime rate and the USA not?

I'm fairly sure I read that ammo is kept at gun clubs and can only be used there. I also think there is a big difference between getting to keep a gun after you have served in the military and having a right to own a gun because you are alive. One is as a result of serving your country and keeping it safe the other reminds me of the Wild West. It's just a completely different mindset.

Edit: just found this.

Quote:

Prior to 2007 members of the Swiss Militia were supplied with 50 rounds of ammunition for their military weapon in a sealed ammo box that was regularly audited by the government. This was so that, in the case of an emergency, the militia could respond quickly. However, since 2007 this practice has been discontinued. Only 2,000 specialist militia members (who protect airports and other sites of particular sensitivity) are permitted to keep their military-issued ammunition at home. The rest of the militia get their ammunition from their military armory in the event of an emergency

One of the things I was reading was saying in the US there is a bit of BS written about the Swiss. One of the things is they are only allowed so much ammo in a sealed box at home. However that is BS. They are allowed to keep whatever they want however their supplied "Emergency" stash has to be kept sealed and only used if called to arms as it were.

In other words the supplied box of bullets wasn't allowed to be touched however they could go buy whatever they wanted. I'll dig through the history and find the site in a minute.

So the question is, why can Switzerland have such a high gun ownership rate and a relatively low gun crime rate and the USA not?

I'm fairly sure I read that ammo is kept at gun clubs and can only be used there. I also think there is a big difference between getting to keep a gun after you have served in the military and having a right to own a gun because you are alive. One is as a result of serving your country and keeping it safe the other reminds me of the Wild West. It's just a completely different mindset.

Edit: just found this.

Quote:

Prior to 2007 members of the Swiss Militia were supplied with 50 rounds of ammunition for their military weapon in a sealed ammo box that was regularly audited by the government. This was so that, in the case of an emergency, the militia could respond quickly. However, since 2007 this practice has been discontinued. Only 2,000 specialist militia members (who protect airports and other sites of particular sensitivity) are permitted to keep their military-issued ammunition at home. The rest of the militia get their ammunition from their military armory in the event of an emergency

One of the things I was reading was saying in the US there is a bit of BS written about the Swiss. One of the things is they are only allowed so much ammo in a sealed box at home. However that is BS. They are allowed to keep whatever they want however their supplied "Emergency" stash has to be kept sealed and only used if called to arms as it were.

In other words the supplied box of bullets wasn't allowed to be touched however they could go buy whatever they wanted. I'll dig through the history and find the site in a minute.

I see a petition is on the White House website asking for Piers Morgan to be deported because he has called for stronger gun control. Apparantly it goes against the second amendment.

Now putting aside personal opinion on Morgan as that's not what I'm interested in here, can someone, preferably an American point out to me the reason this petition has been started. Is calling for tighter gun control really a reason for deportation? Is the Amendment really so set in stone and so important that the mere thought that someone has spoken out in a way that somehow contravenes it, despite this comment being an attempt to save lives, is such a crime in itself?

I see a petition is on the White House website asking for Piers Morgan to be deported because he has called for stronger gun control. Apparantly it goes against the second amendment.

Now putting aside personal opinion on Morgan as that's not what I'm interested in here, can someone, preferably an American point out to me the reason this petition has been started. Is calling for tighter gun control really a reason for deportation? Is the Amendment really so set in stone and so important that the mere thought that someone has spoken out in a way that somehow contravenes it, despite this comment being an attempt to save lives, is such a crime in itself?

I see a petition is on the White House website asking for Piers Morgan to be deported because he has called for stronger gun control. Apparantly it goes against the second amendment.

Now putting aside personal opinion on Morgan as that's not what I'm interested in here, can someone, preferably an American point out to me the reason this petition has been started. Is calling for tighter gun control really a reason for deportation? Is the Amendment really so set in stone and so important that the mere thought that someone has spoken out in a way that somehow contravenes it, despite this comment being an attempt to save lives, is such a crime in itself?

2nd Amendment trumps the 1st it seems ...

_________________"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea."

and now it will be the time to give weapon to firefighters (after mental suggestion to give the same amount of fire power to teachers by CROCKETT KELLER owner of the gun shop in an interview with Pierce Morgan on CNN)

_________________We are worse than animals, we hunger for the killWe put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the willWe kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damnedWe are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man

I see a petition is on the White House website asking for Piers Morgan to be deported because he has called for stronger gun control. Apparantly it goes against the second amendment.

Now putting aside personal opinion on Morgan as that's not what I'm interested in here, can someone, preferably an American point out to me the reason this petition has been started. Is calling for tighter gun control really a reason for deportation? Is the Amendment really so set in stone and so important that the mere thought that someone has spoken out in a way that somehow contravenes it, despite this comment being an attempt to save lives, is such a crime in itself?

AW,

They have the right to submit the petition, and if they have 25,000 signatures the government is required to respond to it... not follow it's wishes, just respond. It is basically a meaningless jesture by a bunch of clowns who would trample all over every other part of the constitution... including free speech... to keep their guns and their right to purchase more of the damn things. All-in-all, it is just some zealots exercising their constitutional rights..... it will amount to nothing.

I see a petition is on the White House website asking for Piers Morgan to be deported because he has called for stronger gun control. Apparantly it goes against the second amendment.

Now putting aside personal opinion on Morgan as that's not what I'm interested in here, can someone, preferably an American point out to me the reason this petition has been started. Is calling for tighter gun control really a reason for deportation? Is the Amendment really so set in stone and so important that the mere thought that someone has spoken out in a way that somehow contravenes it, despite this comment being an attempt to save lives, is such a crime in itself?

AW,

They have the right to submit the petition, and if they have 25,000 signatures the government is required to respond to it... not follow it's wishes, just respond. It is basically a meaningless jesture by a bunch of clowns who would trample all over every other part of the constitution... including free speech... to keep their guns and their right to purchase more of the damn things. All-in-all, it is just some zealots exercising their constitutional rights..... it will amount to nothing.

Whatever your views are on gun control, surely, kicking Piers Morgan out is a massive step forward for the well being of American society.

I see a petition is on the White House website asking for Piers Morgan to be deported because he has called for stronger gun control. Apparantly it goes against the second amendment.

Now putting aside personal opinion on Morgan as that's not what I'm interested in here, can someone, preferably an American point out to me the reason this petition has been started. Is calling for tighter gun control really a reason for deportation? Is the Amendment really so set in stone and so important that the mere thought that someone has spoken out in a way that somehow contravenes it, despite this comment being an attempt to save lives, is such a crime in itself?

AW,

They have the right to submit the petition, and if they have 25,000 signatures the government is required to respond to it... not follow it's wishes, just respond. It is basically a meaningless jesture by a bunch of clowns who would trample all over every other part of the constitution... including free speech... to keep their guns and their right to purchase more of the damn things. All-in-all, it is just some zealots exercising their constitutional rights..... it will amount to nothing.

Whatever your views are on gun control, surely, kicking Piers Morgan out is a massive step forward for the well being of American society.

Maybe, but we don't want him back

_________________There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

I see a petition is on the White House website asking for Piers Morgan to be deported because he has called for stronger gun control. Apparantly it goes against the second amendment.

Now putting aside personal opinion on Morgan as that's not what I'm interested in here, can someone, preferably an American point out to me the reason this petition has been started. Is calling for tighter gun control really a reason for deportation? Is the Amendment really so set in stone and so important that the mere thought that someone has spoken out in a way that somehow contravenes it, despite this comment being an attempt to save lives, is such a crime in itself?

Being neither American nor British, I suppose I'm allowed to give a personal opinion on Piers Morgan. 1- He is courageous 2- He is right : This Mr Pratt just got an undeserved additional 'T' to his name

_________________As my brother said : "I've got the brain of a four year old. I'll bet he was glad to be rid of it".

I'll never understand how this "right to bear arms" can be worth so much. It would be justified if it saved more people than it sacrificed... but any sane person can see that is not the case at all.

This was my earlier.. the reason this right still exists today is because of the apparently huge value that american society places on it. If the values changed significantly, then the constitution would eventually be changed accordingly. I personally fail to understand why value can be placed, in this day and age, on the right to bear arms. Again, as others have pointed out, there's a difference between having a right and exercising it - that's where personal judgement comes in. It seems that judgement is lacking in too many cases.

Johnston said earlier that owning a gun as a hobby is just about the same as going paint-balling. Well go and play paint-balling then. But I would bet my life and everything i have that if you gave every Briton the right to own a gun, there would be more gun crime and more deaths as a result. The old argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people, is ridiculous because it assumes that every person who shoots someone is neither influenced by the availability of a gun in that moment, nor by the attitude towards guns in society as a whole. It also implies that if you put in place strict gun laws, that all those who would shoot someone today, would do whatever it took to get hold of a gun in order to commit their crime, but I think this is a fallacy.

I bet if you had a government which told the population for long enough that jews, disabled people and gypsies were scum and should be exterminated in their millions, the environment would be created in which it was tolerated and even supported by a large number of folks who would normally consider themselves "good people" (oh, that happened...). Plenty of people are easily led, swayed and influenced. Plenty of other people have a "dark side" where, given the opportunity and the right environment, they would be prepared to be more violent than they would be in a society which refuses to tolerate it.

I mean, if we changed the consistution to give everyone the right to buy and sell hard drugs, do we think it wouldn't have an effect on society and on the number of people killed in drug-related crime and use?

I see a petition is on the White House website asking for Piers Morgan to be deported because he has called for stronger gun control. Apparantly it goes against the second amendment.

Now putting aside personal opinion on Morgan as that's not what I'm interested in here, can someone, preferably an American point out to me the reason this petition has been started. Is calling for tighter gun control really a reason for deportation? Is the Amendment really so set in stone and so important that the mere thought that someone has spoken out in a way that somehow contravenes it, despite this comment being an attempt to save lives, is such a crime in itself?

AW,

They have the right to submit the petition, and if they have 25,000 signatures the government is required to respond to it... not follow it's wishes, just respond. It is basically a meaningless jesture by a bunch of clowns who would trample all over every other part of the constitution... including free speech... to keep their guns and their right to purchase more of the damn things. All-in-all, it is just some zealots exercising their constitutional rights..... it will amount to nothing.

Whatever your views are on gun control, surely, kicking Piers Morgan out is a massive step forward for the well being of American society.

While that article seems to bring up some good points, it did raise my eyebrow that it seems to equate the granting of rights to women with an increase in crime.

It's just that pre 1920's women's right to vote and prohibition were big issues, and both were enacted in the same year, 1920. Prohibition was the 18th Amendment, and women's right to vote was the 19th. Prohibition created crime and made a lot of Canadians rich.

I've heard that old argument "guns don't kill people, people kill people", and it's becoming quite lame and stale. Although technically correct, the truth is that when it comes to killing, people use guns.

When the 2nd Amendment was enacted in 1791, conditions were very different than what we have in the modern day. The most powerful portable weapon available was the gun in 1791, but today the M-29 Davy Crockett Weapon System with the W54 is a modern analogy. Would we allow anyone to possess a nuclear weapon? Of course not, they have to be controlled. And that needs to be applied to all serious weapons, including guns.

I didn't say ban them, just control them, there has to be a solution where both camps can live with the result. But both sides have their devout fanatics, either endorsing a complete ban, or unrestricted ownership of anything that can fire a bullet. But in a nation where bullying, stupidity, and ignorance is actually rewarded, where social programs are lacking, and people with serious mental issues can't find help or just slip through the holes, I don't have much hope.

The NRA has lost touch with reality and are controlled by fanatics. When someone states, "I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands", that's the very definition of a fanatic. They also remove themselves from being seriously taken as "good guys" with that scary approach. When I see this picture, it is all about old white guys brandishing an antique weapon and concept.

So the question is, why can Switzerland have such a high gun ownership rate and a relatively low gun crime rate and the USA not?

I'm fairly sure I read that ammo is kept at gun clubs and can only be used there. I also think there is a big difference between getting to keep a gun after you have served in the military and having a right to own a gun because you are alive. One is as a result of serving your country and keeping it safe the other reminds me of the Wild West. It's just a completely different mindset.

Edit: just found this.

Quote:

Prior to 2007 members of the Swiss Militia were supplied with 50 rounds of ammunition for their military weapon in a sealed ammo box that was regularly audited by the government. This was so that, in the case of an emergency, the militia could respond quickly. However, since 2007 this practice has been discontinued. Only 2,000 specialist militia members (who protect airports and other sites of particular sensitivity) are permitted to keep their military-issued ammunition at home. The rest of the militia get their ammunition from their military armory in the event of an emergency

One of the things I was reading was saying in the US there is a bit of BS written about the Swiss. One of the things is they are only allowed so much ammo in a sealed box at home. However that is BS. They are allowed to keep whatever they want however their supplied "Emergency" stash has to be kept sealed and only used if called to arms as it were.

In other words the supplied box of bullets wasn't allowed to be touched however they could go buy whatever they wanted. I'll dig through the history and find the site in a minute.

Just FYI, I have been living in Switzerland for the last 3 years (Not Swiss) and my friends who are and who have served in the military state that they only are permitted to keep <10 rounds at home while active. All stored ammunition is audited regularly. Not sure about retired service people but I can't envisage that active service people are restricted and retired military are able to buy/store unlimited ammunition. I do know that retired military can keep items from their issue - including weapons. Up until several years ago, active military personnel would routinely be seen going home with weapons slung, but in the last few years I haven't seen this once.

On a personal note, large amounts of weapons in the hands of 'the people' - in Switzerland - doesn't make me feel unsafe. Its a very safe and sensible society and I suppose the majority of weapon holders are trained in handling/safety of weapons.

_________________Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter in school science classes?

is it the way of freedom - put on bulletproof clothes to send kids to school? and we are not talking about war zone.

_________________We are worse than animals, we hunger for the killWe put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the willWe kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damnedWe are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man

The 2nd Amendment talks about arms, but it says nothing about ammunition to go with the arms. So in theory there is nothing stopping the government from bypassing the 2nd Amendment completely and simply legislating about ammunition. They could restrict the type and quantity available, put caveats on the requirements for purchase and also legislate about the cost.

There are other alternatives as well. The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify what arms a person has the right to have and the Supreme Court has never interpreted it to mean 'any arms whatsoever'. They could legislate around the types.

However to me the ammunition approach would be by far the simplest solution to the issue. It might not change the culture but it would make it exceedingly difficult for people to actually utilise their guns. I believe that a huge part of the problem is the convenience element to using a gun.

The 2nd Amendment talks about arms, but it says nothing about ammunition to go with the arms. So in theory there is nothing stopping the government from bypassing the 2nd Amendment completely and simply legislating about ammunition. They could restrict the type and quantity available, put caveats on the requirements for purchase and also legislate about the cost.

There are other alternatives as well. The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify what arms a person has the right to have and the Supreme Court has never interpreted it to mean 'any arms whatsoever'. They could legislate around the types.

However to me the ammunition approach would be by far the simplest solution to the issue. It might not change the culture but it would make it exceedingly difficult for people to actually utilise their guns. I believe that a huge part of the problem is the convenience element to using a gun.

_________________We are worse than animals, we hunger for the killWe put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the willWe kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damnedWe are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man